In Olympia legislators are fond of quoting an old homily to justify seemingly contradictory positions… “Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”  I am no exception although I try hard to be.

I have spent a large part of my time in the legislature trying to reduce the number of junior taxing districts in Washington. We have more than 1,700 such districts from fire districts (probably a reasonable example) to library districts, cemetery districts, mosquito districts, ferry districts, flood control districts, and metropolitan park districts, the subject of this editorial.

I have opposed these districts because I believe they have added an unnecessary level of government that should be provided by local city and county councils. They require an additional set of elected officials who often become entrenched and only view political reality through the very narrow prism of their own self interest. They do not have to consider the competing demands city councils must address such as balancing the need for roads, libraries, human services, water and sewer systems, fire and police services, and parks.

Unfortunately taxpayers find themselves caught in the middle paying for it all and that is why I think we should have fewer such districts.

That said, enter my inconsistency… I believe Kirkland’s Proposition 1 to create a Metropolitan Park District is actually a good idea. I believe it makes sense because it addresses the major concern I have with separately elected districts. Prop. 1 would create a taxing district with the Kirkland City Council acting as the elected commissioners as opposed to a set of separately elected officials, thereby assuring that taxing decisions will be made in light of the all the other demands the council must meet. I have looked at hundreds of other taxing districts and this model has been shown to work elsewhere around the state.

Then there is the enormous cost saving to taxpayers by forming a district versus using the traditional bond method of financing advocated by the opponents of Prop 1. It appears that at least $20 million in land acquisition would be avoided. I for one do not want my city spending $20 million to buy land before we even know if the voters would approve the spending plan. Prop. 1 avoids this. Then there is the possibility of partnering with neighboring jurisdictions like Redmond, Bellevue and the Lake Washington School District. Traditional bond funding effectively removes this as a viable option.

Opponents of Prop. 1 like to say “No blank check.” Well, Prop. 1 gives the city council no more “blank check” authority than voters give them for funding fire and police, environmental stewardship, roads and parks (by the way, the envy of every other city in the region). I will continue to oppose the proliferation of junior taxing districts because they are generally a flawed system of governance, except when they are not. And Prop. 1 is not.

Please join me in support of a well thought out approach to asking the citizens of Kirkland if they would support an Aquatic and Recreational Center in a city renowned for answering the call to action from its residents in a fiscally prudent way.

Larry Springer is a former Kirkland mayor and representative from the 45th District in Olympia.